Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
isNull lodash vs native
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
native vs lodash
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
native
null === null
lodash
_.isNull(null)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
native
lodash
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 133 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=590404" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
native
174332944.0 Ops/sec
lodash
162460752.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand the test case being performed on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition and Test Cases** The benchmark definition is a simple comparison between two values: `null` and `null`. This means that we're testing whether both JavaScript engines (native and Lodash) produce the same result when checking if a variable is null. There are only two test cases: 1. "native" - This test case uses the native JavaScript engine to compare `null` with itself. 2. "lodash" - This test case uses the Lodash library, which provides a utility function `isNull()` that checks if a value is null or undefined. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, we have two options: 1. **Native JavaScript**: The native JavaScript engine uses the built-in comparison operators to check for equality between two values. In this case, it's comparing `null` with itself. 2. **Lodash `isNull()` function**: Lodash provides a utility function that checks if a value is null or undefined. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Native JavaScript**: * Pros: Built-in performance, no external dependencies. * Cons: May not be optimized for specific use cases, can be slower due to interpreter overhead. 2. **Lodash `isNull()` function**: * Pros: Optimized for null checks, allows for more flexibility in implementation (e.g., also checks for undefined). * Cons: Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library), may have performance overhead. **Library and Purpose** In this case, the Lodash library is used to provide a utility function `isNull()`. The purpose of this function is to check if a value is null or undefined. It's likely that the author of the benchmark chose to use Lodash for its optimized implementation of null checks. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They're straightforward comparisons between `null` and itself, with one option using a library function. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to run the same benchmark without using Lodash, you could implement the null check manually in your own code. Alternatively, if you wanted to use a different library for null checks, such as Jest or TypeScript's built-in type checking, you could choose to do so. However, keep in mind that each of these alternatives would have its own pros and cons. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Null and undefined checks
lodash isEmpty vs native for empty strings
lodash isNil vs native isNil with if
lodash isboolean vs typeof
lodash isboolean vs typeof false
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?